Options
Is anyone else upset by the attack on MCM in the 2/27 issue of CW??
Raufus
Posts: 6,784 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was very much enjoying reading the 2/27 issue of CW which arrived today until I got to the "Guest Commentary" attack on MCM on p. 14
The author contends that MCM violated the "spirit" of the household limit "law" by putting out a buy offer for the 25th sets prior to release.
Beyond the fact that MCM was not the only one to do this AND the fact that MCM did nothing illegal, I find this very public attack on such a fantastic company infuriating.
I think that MCM, perhaps more than any other company, has MADE the market for moderns. I've bought from and sold to MCM many times. They are one of THE BEST companies with whom I've ever dealt. Beyond that, what made me so mad about the article is that MCM has done so much for moderns and the modern market that such an attack is particularly inappropriate - not to mention that several other dealers did the same thing.
Sorry for the rant, but it really irks me when a great company is impugned in public for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I hope that CW lets John publish a rebuttal if he so wishes.
Edited: I should add that the piece is entitled: "Firm's acquisition of 2011 sets, while legal, is troubling." Guest Commentary by Richard L. Francis J.
The author contends that MCM violated the "spirit" of the household limit "law" by putting out a buy offer for the 25th sets prior to release.
Beyond the fact that MCM was not the only one to do this AND the fact that MCM did nothing illegal, I find this very public attack on such a fantastic company infuriating.
I think that MCM, perhaps more than any other company, has MADE the market for moderns. I've bought from and sold to MCM many times. They are one of THE BEST companies with whom I've ever dealt. Beyond that, what made me so mad about the article is that MCM has done so much for moderns and the modern market that such an attack is particularly inappropriate - not to mention that several other dealers did the same thing.
Sorry for the rant, but it really irks me when a great company is impugned in public for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I hope that CW lets John publish a rebuttal if he so wishes.
Edited: I should add that the piece is entitled: "Firm's acquisition of 2011 sets, while legal, is troubling." Guest Commentary by Richard L. Francis J.
Land of the Free because of the Brave!
0
Comments
I can absolutely guarantee that if the sets were worth equal or less than what MCM paid, nobody would be bringing this up. Food for though.
<< <i>I haven't seen the article but if they are saying that MCM being a business and operating as he sees fit, and within the US Mint's intent on the distribution of the coins, then shame on the author. If you take the time to call the US Mint and ask if you can have friends buy coins for you, the answer is YES. If you go a step furthur and ask if you can buy a coin that has a limit, and have your friend buy them for you also, the answer is still YES. The ONLY thing the mint requires is the HOUSEHOLD limit not be exceeded. Some folks have way too much time on their hands and if I were to guess, the author is probably over 65 years old and is ticked he didn't make a ton of money on the sets.
I can absolutely guarantee that if the sets were worth equal or less than what MCM paid, nobody would be bringing this up. Food for though. >>
Disclaimer: I have not read the article.
If they were singled out that is really unfair as many were offering premiums.
If the sets went down and they lost money I doubt the contributing editorial writer would have felt bad for them and wrote the article. Very one sided to me.
Personally, I think MCM played by the rules. However, I think the rules were bad and that the mint should have done a one per household limit at least for the first 24 hours.
and MCM is Modern Coin Mart, a darn good company if you ask me
<< <i>Well there's a benefit. It doesn't matter if they talk bad or good about a guy, so long as they talk It's free advertising. >>
This particular practice is employed quite frequently. I even do it myself using my relatives where possible since I can recongize a marketing opportunity. And this one was the ultimate from the day it was announced.
I do feel sorry for the folks that do not understand how the coin business actually works and truth be told, I'm a little pissed I didn't purchase a 2001 Buffalo but I certainly do not hold it agaimst thopse folks that had the foresight to purchase extras and then make a couple of bucks!
When the 2011 Anniversary Set was announced, I knew immediately that it would be a winner. What I did not anticipate was such a low mintage and the relatively high per household limits. When that was announced, I did everything in my power to insure that I got 5 sets. I did not get the 10 sets I'd hoped for but I surely am not holding it against MCM. It is, after all, a free market and if folks do not understand that simple concept and the fact that the US Mint is simply selling products, then perhaps they should collect beanie babies.
The name is LEE!
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Coin World sucks >>
Personally, I think how the Mint (mis)handled the initial sale of the ATB bullion coins through its "preferred" dealer network was much worse than the 6-hour sellout of the anniversary sets! Assuming you tried hard enough on the first day, you had a basically decent chance of successfully placing an order.
<< <i>CW should have shown better taste than to let someone else attack MCM on CW's dime. Freedom to buy and sell at a price dictated strictly by market forces drives the coin market (and any other true market). If I were MCM I'd spend my advertising $ elsewhere. >>
Your point about the advertising is spot on. I hadn't even thought about that aspect of this.
P.33 is a full page, color MCM ad.
I can't imagine how much MCM has spend advertising in CW over the years. It seems like there is always a one or two page full color ads in every issue. They are usually my favorite ads in any issue as they give a feel for the Moderns market.
Just amazing that they'd publish this hit piece on such a loyal advertiser (and truly great company).
All they did was to make a market in a new issue. All indications are that they played totally above-board, and that's been their history on BST as well. The article blames them unfairly for other people's behavior, which is idiotic.
I knew it would happen.
As a buyer: QualityCurrencycom, tychojoe, AurumMiner, Collectorcoins, perfectstrike, ModCrewman, LeeBone, nickel, REALGATOR, MICHAELDIXON, pointfivezero, Walkerguy21D
Trades: georgiacop50
And I do not collect or even care the slightest bit for modern mint products. MCM did not do anything even remotely unethical.
The writer of that guest commentary [Feb. 27] to CW was WAY off base. Many of the buyers of these Mint sets are simply buying
them to flip them, so his point is moot. The notion that lots of people rushed to order sets because a dealer advertised to buy
them before they were sold out is risible. Buying mint products to flip them has been going on for years. Get over it.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
The "spirit of the household limit" is that a household should not get more than 5 sets max... right? The US Mint came up with the number of sets available for the household limit after careful research and consideration and, if they came up with a number that was (hypothetically) upwards of 5x more than it should have been for most collectors out there, then where does the problem truly lie with folks taking advantage of that household limit to essentially end up with their set for free (or even 2+ sets free) by selling off the other 3 or 4 sets to whomever they chose to? So, that writer acknowledges that nothing illegal had taken place. But, also, if the US Mint did not want collectors to buy more sets than they truly wanted to keep for their collection (i.e. if that was indeed the "spirit" of this offering), then couldn't the Mint have just simply stated that? Just like the Mint clearly set up rules for collectors to only buy as many Pres $1's as they intended to spend in commerce and not to bring to the bank to capture some quick credit card points.
And, I do have no problem with the commentator's free speech. Things should be discussed openly as we are doing here ... that writer had every right to write what he felt in this free country. MCM has every right to respond fully to the assertions in that piece.
Side note... if you think these 25th Anniv. sets were hard to come by ... did any try to get (great) Springsteen tickets this month? I need to sell a heck of a lot of 25th Anniv sets I am buying on the open market to raise the money needed to take the family to the Springsteen show!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Let's just realize who is who what is what. I'm for the dealer offering great collectibles to people who enjoy collecting and I'm for the freedom we enjoy to whine about not getting what we want and blaming someone else for it
That's laughable and I did not read the article. Anyone who knows where a good fishing hole is, goes there when he wants to fish, but if someone got there first who's at fault ? The early bird ?
"I didn't get my chance", "Dealers are swimming with them", "Should have been one per household", etc.
I am so tired of people thinking life should be fair, democracy should rule, everyone deserves an equal chance. Sometimes it's about business!
For many companies best customers get preferential treatment. That's how I run my business. Maybe the Mint should take care of its oldest and best customers first and let newcomers wait in line.
Lance.
Oh but just wait until the next hot Mint product comes along. I was recently reading that they might have a 1 per HH limit or even attempt a "lottery" system! Just imagine how well that circus will work out!
<< <i>A few well-written rebuttals to Coin World might be in order. I've bought from MCM recently and found them to be just fine.
All they did was to make a market in a new issue. All indications are that they played totally above-board, and that's been their history on BST as well. The article blames them unfairly for other people's behavior, which is idiotic. >>
I just sent my (hopefully well-written) rebuttal.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
If you want to get more upset, open the WSJ or NYT and read the editorials and opinion pieces that you do not agree with. Some are much more upsetting because they are written by professionals who are much more skillful at slanting facts and swaying opinion.
For those who argue that "life ain't fair" or "it's capitalism so it's great", just remember that when you get hosed in the housing market, mortgage market, stock market, a coin auction or even some trivial eBay purchase. I am sure that these words will be of great comfort to you.
Next time maybe the mint will change things, but don't hold your breath. Look at this set as a gift to the dealers, kinda like the mint saying thanks for saving us on everything else we make.....lol
<< <i>Nothing to get upset about. The author wrote a well-articulated opinion piece, and they published it.
If you want to get more upset, open the WSJ or NYT and read the editorials and opinion pieces that you do not agree with. Some are much more upsetting because they are written by professionals who are much more skillful at slanting facts and swaying opinion.
For those who argue that "life ain't fair" or "it's capitalism so it's great", just remember that when you get hosed in the housing market, mortgage market, stock market, a coin auction or even some trivial eBay purchase. I am sure that these words will be of great comfort to you. >>
Edited to add ... CW is a "newspaper" whose goal is to sell copy. The editors will print what they feel will bring readers to their paper. It may be disgusting, but such is the way of the free press.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
1. Folks asking a dozen or so people to buy these sets for them (whether family members, business customers, whatever) ... really nothing wrong with that in her book if these people are fairly compensated for their efforts. There comes a time when someone/some company simply has way too many people going after the sets for them that she thinks it "crosses the line". For example, what if a large company had 5,000 people going after the sets and was able to lock up 25,000 sets of the 100,000 total sets that way? She believes that would be "excessive" and unfair. She gave an interesting analogy... we go to this restaurant often that has a large bowl of boxed chicklets (chewing gum) to offer to patrons as they leave free of charge. It is there (presumably) for the patron to take a box or two of chicklets as a thank you from the restaurant. She pointed that taking 1 or 2 boxes is fine. But, the customer who reaches in with both hands and takes a large handful has pushed the limit and becomes "excessive". The bottom line is she believes one can be "fair in business and still very profitable".
2. She applauds CW for posting the commentary. She feels that is how a newspaper is supposed to act. She hopes that newspapers put "politics" aside to fairly publish everyone's viewpoints.
Just her two cents ... but I obviously need to cut back slightly on the number of chicklet packages I take from that restaurant after dinner (especially because it is not sugarfree).
Wondercoin
Maben offered to buy coins from the general public? OMG, what is the world coming to? Next thing to happen is he'll probably offer to sell coins to the public.
I admire his business plan and ethics. I wonder why CW doesn't publish other editorials about some of their other advertisers?....some of those lads have just a wee bit of dirty laundry out there. Some of their advertisers need to understand the difference between BU and slider, for instance. Some of their advertisers just plain need to understand.
<< <i>My wife (a registered nurse of 20+ years) had these thoughts on the subject (from an "outsider" point of view) that were very interesting to me:
1. Folks asking a dozen or so people to buy these sets for them (whether family members, business customers, whatever) ... really nothing wrong with that in her book if these people are fairly compensated for their efforts. There comes a time when someone/some company simply has way too many people going after the sets for them that she thinks it "crosses the line". For example, what if a large company had 5,000 people going after the sets and was able to lock up 25,000 sets of the 100,000 total sets that way? She believes that would be "excessive" and unfair. She gave an interesting analogy... we go to this restaurant often that has a large bowl of boxed chicklets (chewing gum) to offer to patrons as they leave free of charge. It is there (presumably) for the patron to take a box or two of chicklets as a thank you from the restaurant. She pointed that taking 1 or 2 boxes is fine. But, the customer who reaches in with both hands and takes a large handful has pushed the limit and becomes "excessive". The bottom line is she believes one can be "fair in business and still very profitable".
2. She applauds CW for posting the commentary. She feels that is how a newspaper is supposed to act. She hopes that newspapers put "politics" aside to fairly publish everyone's viewpoints.
Just her two cents ... but I obviously need to cut back slightly on the number of chicklet packages I take from that restaurant after dinner (especially because it is not sugarfree).
Wondercoin >>
I appreciate your wife reading the commentary and offering her opinion and that you took the time to post it here. I am having trouble, however, connecting the dots on the analogy. If you took the bowl of chicklets and dumped it in to her purse, while you would be considered a chazer (akin to a greedy pig for those not versed in yiddish ), the restaurant would refill the bowl and the next party to the leave the restaurant would be able to take a pack or two and life would go on. Additionally, you have not paid for the chicklets; it is a parting gift or courtesy.
I also agree that there is probably some number of sets that would have been acquired that would cross the line. You/she suggested that 25,000 sets (out of 100,000) might be the correct number beyond which it would be excessive and unfair, and I would contend that there might be a lower number and someone else might contend there is an even higher number. Some would even agree that even if MCM (or you or I) legally acquired all 100,000 sets, it would be fair. Ultimately, fairness is subjective, and often the people making the money or getting the goods will find the mechanism fair and those not making the money or not getting the goods will find it unfair.
I believe the 5,000 number was a mega extreme example in her book and posted here so as to not offend anyone (as there is no evidence anyone came even close to cornering a 25,000 set position). Her basic position though is that somewhere between a dozen, on the one hand, and 5,000, on the other, getting sets for someone/some entity (and everyone is free to subjectively determine where that number should be for them), a line is crossed from it be "OK" to it not being "OK". I thought that was a interesting conclusion to this "ethical" quandry.
Wondercoin
<< <i>IMO All Mint releases should be limited to one per household the first week, then no limit.......
>>
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Now, some people used multiple addresses and multiple credit cards in order to buy extra sets in order to get around Mint policy. I'd say that those people showed disrespect for everyone else, and a bit of greed as well. MCM didn't do that (that I know of).
What I find ironic is that these people who took MCM's offer ended up selling for $60/set profit. If they'd sold them later, they'd have made at least $400/set. That's what I find somewhat amusing. The neophytes and non-collectors who may have thought they were making easy money actually shortchanged themselves! HaHa!
If you want to blame someone for anything, blame the Mint for their distribution policy and their mintage limits. All the Mint did was to draw people into another speculation over another of its product offerings. Standard practice, these days. Not very nice, but standard practice nontheless.
I knew it would happen.
I'm all for the free press -- hopefully they are looking at everyone with a critical eye!
<< <i>CW should have shown better taste than to let someone else attack MCM on CW's dime. Freedom to buy and sell at a price dictated strictly by market forces drives the coin market (and any other true market). If I were MCM I'd spend my advertising $ elsewhere. >>
Very well put.......
Larry L.
<< <i>The author contends that MCM violated the "spirit" of the household limit "law" by putting out a buy offer for the 25th sets prior to release.
>>
It's the nature of these buy offers that stink. It's one thing for a business to advertise that they are buying at a given price and the seller can take take it or leave it.
It's another thing for a business to demand that once you agree, you absolutely, positively, step on a crack, break your mother's back HAVE to sell to them or else your name will be mud.
A lot of people were taken advantage of by this tactic, I think.
Just as ebay did not allow pre-sales before delivery of the 25th sets, I think BST listings by coin dealers demanding sellers to sell to them after delivery should not be allowed.
Here's MCM BST buy offer language for the 25th set -
<<2) Once we have your USM order numbers it's a non reversable deal. You must deliver sealed sets, and we must pay as agreed.
5) You must ship the sets to us within two (2) business days of your receipt from the USM. >>
I know I will never, ever get involved in a dealer buy offer before delivery again.
My .02
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I wouldn't be surprised if there is a rebuttal from MCM in CW in the near future. >>
I sincerely doubt it. What are they going to say?
"We are appalled at the guest commentary of 2/27/12 in which we were criticized for asking thousands of people to spend four hours on the phone and computer to make $60 per set so that we could make an additional $500/set and thereby prevent hardworking people from buying the sets from the Mint price and coerce them to pay multiples of offering price so that they could complete their sets."
Gimme a break! Maybe they will ask their legions of set buyers to write letters for $10 off their next purchase.
Better yet, let the issue die.
<< <i>"The author contends that MCM violated the "spirit" of the household limit "law" by putting out a buy offer for the 25th sets prior to release."
The "spirit of the household limit" is that a household should not get more than 5 sets max... right? The US Mint came up with the number of sets available for the household limit after careful research and consideration and, if they came up with a number that was (hypothetically) upwards of 5x more than it should have been for most collectors out there, then where does the problem truly lie with folks taking advantage of that household limit to essentially end up with their set for free (or even 2+ sets free) by selling off the other 3 or 4 sets to whomever they chose to? So, that writer acknowledges that nothing illegal had taken place. But, also, if the US Mint did not want collectors to buy more sets than they truly wanted to keep for their collection (i.e. if that was indeed the "spirit" of this offering), then couldn't the Mint have just simply stated that? Just like the Mint clearly set up rules for collectors to only buy as many Pres $1's as they intended to spend in commerce and not to bring to the bank to capture some quick credit card points.
And, I do have no problem with the commentator's free speech. Things should be discussed openly as we are doing here ... that writer had every right to write what he felt in this free country. MCM has every right to respond fully to the assertions in that piece.
Side note... if you think these 25th Anniv. sets were hard to come by ... did any try to get (great) Springsteen tickets this month? I need to sell a heck of a lot of 25th Anniv sets I am buying on the open market to raise the money needed to take the family to the Springsteen show!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin >>
Every hot coin is hard to get so they put out a buy order to get what they can so they can sell the item we all did it i bought many sets off the BST and my 5 from the mint. They did not steal them they bought them just like any other dealer like you and me if some one is selling them you can buy them that is BS there is no law that says you cant do this. But to out one guy is not right What if they put Wondercoin in the line of fire or P.C.G.S or E-Bay I think some one will be saying sorry in there next issue.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>Sounds like free market capitalism to me. And getting upset over a letter in CW is just plain silly. >>
...ditto.
Wow.
Ends justify the means I guess. Your description of the BST buy offers from dealers is very different than I recall.
Question - does still = steal? Just wondering....